Cited by 553Ethics and Social Impacts of AIDigitalization, Law, and RegulationExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

Society-in-the-loop: programming the algorithmic social contract

Open access
Rahwan, Iyad·2018·Ethics and Information Technology

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10676-017-9430-8

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • La concentración de la distracción y de la atención genera más datos para ajustar las cajas negras o algoritmos que determinan los intereses del consumidor y, al mismo tiempo, permite un mayor y más refinado control sobre el usuario.

    “La concentración de tal distracción y de la atención genera más datos para ajustar las cajas negras o algoritmos que determinan los intereses del consumidor ( Rahwan , 2018) y, al mismo tiempo, permiten un mayor y más refinado control sobre el usuario ( Celis-Bueno , 2017; Franck , 2019a).”

    From Redes sociales y consumo digital en jóvenes universitarios: economía de la atención y oligopolios de la comunicación en el siglo XXI (2020) · cites this paper as Rahwan, 2018

    The Introduction (p. 1) describes opaque, data-driven algorithms, and §7.3 (p. 7) discusses online ads served using users’ information. Neither passage says that concentrating attention and distraction generates more data to refine algorithms that determine consumer interests. The later claim about greater control over users is attached to other citations, not Rahwan. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The idea of keeping society in the loop could apply also to the meso level, i.e., the organization in which AI is applied.

    “There is no reason this idea could not apply also to the meso level, i.e., to the organization in which AI is applied.”

    From Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence (2023) · cites this paper as Rahwan (2018)

    Section 3 (p. 3) introduces society-in-the-loop as a way to embed society’s values in oversight of AI with broad societal implications. It does not propose applying the framework at the meso level of an organization; that extension is the citing author’s inference. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Some changes result from external factors that include the societal context; others include aspects of inter-organizational collaboration with an ecology of external partners.

    “Some changes result from external factors (4a) that include the societal context (Rahwan 2018), others usually include aspects of inter-organizational collaboration (Campion et al. 2020) with an ecology of external partners.”

    From Keeping the organization in the loop: a socio-technical extension of human-centered artificial intelligence (2023) · cites this paper as Rahwan 2018

    Rahwan says broad societal values should guide the monitoring of AI systems (Section 6.1, p. 6), and that public-shaped norms should influence how their performance is measured (Section 7.5, p. 8). This supports societal context as an influence on changes to AI governance, but does not establish the broader claim that changes generally result from external factors. The inter-organizational collaboration clause is attributed to another citation, not Rahwan. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • One approach to ensure cultural beliefs and values are present in an AI model is to carefully curate the dataset on which the model is trained.

    “One approach is to carefully curate the dataset on which the model is trained 187,188 .”

    From Machine culture (2023) · cites this paper as [187]

  • Wirtz et al. (2020) were only able to identify two frameworks focused on the governance or regulation of AI risks and challenges, namely those of Gasser and Almeida (2017) and Rahwan (2018).

    “While looking for frameworks focused on the governance or regulation of AI risks and challenges, Wirtz et al. (2020) were only able to identify two such frameworks, namely those of Gasser and Almeida (2017) and Rahwan (2018).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. [1]1. Aldewereld, H., Dignum, V., and hua Tan, Y. (2014). Design for values in software development. In Jeroen van den Hoven, Pieter E. Vermaas, I. v. d. P., editor, Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design . Springer.
  2. [2]2. Allen, J., Guinn, C. I., and Horvtz, E. (1999). Mixedinitiative interaction. IEEE Intelligent Systems and their Applications , 14(5):14-23.
  3. [4]4. Arrow, K. J. (2012). Social choice and individual values , volume 12. Yale university press.
  4. [18]18. Conitzer, V., Brill, M., and Freeman, R. (2015). Crowdsourcing societal tradeoffs. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems , pages 1213-1217. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.
  5. [28]28. Gauthier, D. (1986). Morals by agreement . Oxford University Press on Demand.
  6. [37]37. IEEE (2016). Ethically aligned design. Technical report, The IEEE Global Initiative for Ethical Considerations in Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Systems.
  7. [55]55. O'Reilly, T. (2016). Open data and algorithmic regulation. In Goldstein, B. and Dyson, L., editors, Beyond Transparency: Open Data and the Future of Civic Innovation . Code for America Press.
  8. [56]56. Orseau, L. and Armstrong, S. (2016). Safely interruptible agents. In Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence: 32nd Conference (UAI) .
  9. [57]57. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you . Penguin UK.
  10. [61]61. Pigou, A. C. (21920). The economics of welfare . Palgrave Macmillan.
  11. [62]62. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice . Harvard university press.
  12. [72]72. Sweeney, L. (2013). Discrimination in online ad delivery. Queue , 11(3):10.
  13. [73]73. Tambe, M., Scerri, P., and Pynadath, D. V. (2002). Adjustable autonomy for the real world. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research , 17(1):171-228.
  14. [78]78. Valentino-DeVries, J., Singer-Vine, J., and Soltani, A. (2012). Websites vary prices, deals based on users' information. Wall Street Journal , December 24.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rahwan, I.
Affiliations
MIT Media Lab (US)
Corresponding author
Rahwan, Iyad
Venue
Ethics and Information Technology
Published
2017-08-17
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
5-14
ISSN
  • 1388-1957 (ISSN-L)
  • 1572-8439
OpenAlex
W2738428139
Cited by
553
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 101 · 2025: 101 · 2024: 65 · 2023: 70 · 2022: 66 · 2021: 62 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 1
FWCI
55.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ethics and Information Technology (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Siegel Family Endowment
  • Ethics & Governance of Artificial Intelligence Fund
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Keywords
human-in-the-loop, AI governance, AI regulation, algorithmic transparency, algorithmic accountability, algorithmic fairness, stakeholder negotiation, value negotiation, compliance monitoring, interactive machine learning, autonomous machines

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review